Monday, July 23, 2018

It is funny how the phony Putin election interference claims hide the actual interference in the election process by the Obama Administration and the American IC. "FISA Fraud by Obama's DOJ and Intel Community by Publius Tacitus".

Peter Strzok relies entirely on 'belief', a questionable source (Steele) who is both on the FBI's payroll (improperly, as he was a 'former' British agent), and the payroll of the Clinton campaign (having improbably passed on from Jeb!'s campaign), and articles from the media, as the sole sources for the FISA application. The Clintonistas tell us this is kosher as there is a long footnote in the application on Steele: "In Tweets, Trump Baselessly Asserts Carter Page FISA App Shows DOJ, FBI Misconduct". It appears that somebody in the FBI added an addendum to one footnote in an extension request to more accurately reflect Steele's dealings with the media, but did not think it important to note that the footnote in the original request was misleading, so it is now clear that trying to get one by the courts using footnotes - a legalistic fine print tactic of shysters - really doesn't pass the smell test. Generally, you are supposed to go out of your way to make the court as informed as possible, particularly in such a constitutionally obtrusive piece of legislation. The credibility of Steele becomes a huge issue when the FBI is essentially vouching for his credibility to the judge:

"If you ever doubted that Peter Strzok and James Comey were corrupt, this one paragraph should erase any uncertainty. Steele had lied to the FBI about a substantive matter, i.e., passing information to the press. Why then should the FBI assume that he was not lying about Russia and Trump? Particularly since they had already acknowledged that Steele had other motives for going after Trump.

Despite acknowledging that Steele had lied and that he was the source for Isikoff's September article, the FBI continued to include the Isikoff material in its application to renew the FISA warrant. Strzok and Comey did not blink. Neither did DOJ Assistant Attorney General Sally Yates."

"The overall FISA application is ridiculously short on substance, and
generally is a long way from providing the evidence needed for Title-1
surveillance authority over a U.S. person. In fact, the FISA
application is very sloppy… almost as if it wasn’t a priority to have a
solid and defensible document. I think there’s a simple reason for
that.
After all, the DOJ and FBI never thought anyone would ever be looking
at this issue; they thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. To quote
the disposition of FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok: “I
want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s
office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t
take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Key word: “unlikely“,
they never contemplated -until later- the full scope of justification
that would be needed…. they were setting up something no-one really
thought would need to be utilized…. all of the legal apoplexy and
ass-covering came in hindsight.
So when we review the FISA application, it is worth reminding
yourself this was a tool, a temporary means to an end, they never
thought they would actually need…. so they didn’t spend a great deal of
time hammering out the finer points. The political surveillance was
useful, but it was likely never to be known how it was utilized. Ms.
Lisa Page was focused on empowering Hillary Clinton, stupid -albeit
useful and obnoxiously arrogant- Pete was in charge of the less-than and
likely unneeded insurance."

sundance then delves into strange anomalies in the actual redacted release itself, almost as if they are trying to maximize the obfuscation even beyond the obvious blacked-out lines, and continues into various other problems/lies. The conclusion is in the middle:

"Occam’s Razor: The FISA Title I surveillance authority over Carter Page was cover, most likely retroactive cover, for the DOJ and FBI conducting surveillance on the Trump campaign."

"Is Carter Page a CIA Spook?" (Rogers). He's a known FBI informant (a 'cooperating asset' in an operation against a Russian spy!) - the contradiction in being an FBI informant while allegedly working for the Russians is noted by sundance - so it isn't much of a stretch to wonder if he was inserted into the Trump campaign as an American IC spy, with the FISA warrant just a way to get his activities recorded.

It is funny how the phony Putin election interference claims hide the actual interference in the election process by the Obama Administration and the American IC. "FISA Fraud by Obama's DOJ and Intel Community by Publius Tacitus".

Peter Strzok relies entirely on 'belief', a questionable source (Steele) who is both on the FBI's payroll (improperly, as he was a 'former' British agent), and the payroll of the Clinton campaign (having improbably passed on from Jeb!'s campaign), and articles from the media, as the sole sources for the FISA application. The Clintonistas tell us this is kosher as there is a long footnote in the application on Steele: "In Tweets, Trump Baselessly Asserts Carter Page FISA App Shows DOJ, FBI Misconduct". It appears that somebody in the FBI added an addendum to one footnote in an extension request to more accurately reflect Steele's dealings with the media, but did not think it important to note that the footnote in the original request was misleading, so it is now clear that trying to get one by the courts using footnotes - a legalistic fine print tactic of shysters - really doesn't pass the smell test. Generally, you are supposed to go out of your way to make the court as informed as possible, particularly in such a constitutionally obtrusive piece of legislation. The credibility of Steele becomes a huge issue when the FBI is essentially vouching for his credibility to the judge:

"If you ever doubted that Peter Strzok and James Comey were corrupt, this one paragraph should erase any uncertainty. Steele had lied to the FBI about a substantive matter, i.e., passing information to the press. Why then should the FBI assume that he was not lying about Russia and Trump? Particularly since they had already acknowledged that Steele had other motives for going after Trump.

Despite acknowledging that Steele had lied and that he was the source for Isikoff's September article, the FBI continued to include the Isikoff material in its application to renew the FISA warrant. Strzok and Comey did not blink. Neither did DOJ Assistant Attorney General Sally Yates."

"The overall FISA application is ridiculously short on substance, and
generally is a long way from providing the evidence needed for Title-1
surveillance authority over a U.S. person. In fact, the FISA
application is very sloppy… almost as if it wasn’t a priority to have a
solid and defensible document. I think there’s a simple reason for
that.
After all, the DOJ and FBI never thought anyone would ever be looking
at this issue; they thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. To quote
the disposition of FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok: “I
want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s
office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t
take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Key word: “unlikely“,
they never contemplated -until later- the full scope of justification
that would be needed…. they were setting up something no-one really
thought would need to be utilized…. all of the legal apoplexy and
ass-covering came in hindsight.
So when we review the FISA application, it is worth reminding
yourself this was a tool, a temporary means to an end, they never
thought they would actually need…. so they didn’t spend a great deal of
time hammering out the finer points. The political surveillance was
useful, but it was likely never to be known how it was utilized. Ms.
Lisa Page was focused on empowering Hillary Clinton, stupid -albeit
useful and obnoxiously arrogant- Pete was in charge of the less-than and
likely unneeded insurance."

sundance then delves into strange anomalies in the actual redacted release itself, almost as if they are trying to maximize the obfuscation even beyond the obvious blacked-out lines, and continues into various other problems/lies. The conclusion is in the middle:

"Occam’s Razor: The FISA Title I surveillance authority over Carter Page was cover, most likely retroactive cover, for the DOJ and FBI conducting surveillance on the Trump campaign."

"Is Carter Page a CIA Spook?" (Rogers). He's a known FBI informant (a 'cooperating asset' in an operation against a Russian spy!) - the contradiction in being an FBI informant while allegedly working for the Russians is noted by sundance - so it isn't much of a stretch to wonder if he was inserted into the Trump campaign as an American IC spy, with the FISA warrant just a way to get his activities recorded.